Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
- Status
You look 25. I am old.That looks great - will try later on my Sawtooth I'm tinkering with....
Alas, I consider myself far too old to join in the fun though
InterWebPPC is TenFourFox code so wont play embedded video that requires QuickTime plugin.
You simply can't effectively use PowerPC online now with only one web browser - you have to use different tools for different jobs and this has been the case for years.
Yeah, I had to use LWK, so it would play. Is there a way to reverse this - using different tools for different jobs regarding internet ? Theoretically, say something happens to the big tech companies and they all disappear and Web 1.1 was brought back as the modern web, would then PowerPC Macs do everything without need of different tools ?
The Web will continue to evolve regardless of what happens to Big Tech. Some Web 2.0 technologies are beneficial for the Web at large-- HTML5 greatly streamlined and simplified the language making it far easier to parse and understand for both human and computer, and pairing it with the power of CSS3 makes for an incredible duo. I like a good aesthetic, and that's why I haven't abandoned ameowli.dev for her Web 1.1 sister. It's not all bad out there.
Though, in your hypothetical world where Web 1.1 was the standard, then there wouldn't be a need for TFF or IWPPC because older browsers would be sufficient. You could probably even forgo LWK for bog standard Safari or even IE for Mac.
Though, in your hypothetical world where Web 1.1 was the standard, then there wouldn't be a need for TFF or IWPPC because older browsers would be sufficient. You could probably even forgo LWK for bog standard Safari or even IE for Mac.
The bottom line - What will benefit PowerPC Macs ? Personally, I hate the web of today and if I had the power I would get rid of it and go back to 2000's internet which removes those stupid ads and other things which bloat the internet. I am sorry if I said in posts ago that web 1.1 should co-exist with the bloated web, I want it to REPLACE it. I am sorry, but the modern web today is so sick and our machines are capable of loading and rendering websites, just the big tech companies choose to fore obsolencense on good hardware. I am also sorry, my thinking is not good I lost a friend today in Kyiv who was killed by the war going on in Ukraine.
But, consider this - if big tech was gone, and all the oppression of the web where WEB 1.1 could come back as MAIN INTERNET, think of what it would be like to use our PowerPC macs again. Like for instance, I am on my G4 Titanium 1ghz typing this and the letters are pausing before appearing - I think this is because Macrumors is javascript based. We can modify the script to work with PPC macs. I am idealist when it comes to internet and I believe WEB 1.1 will come back strong, as everyone is tired of the bloated internet that we have now.
You're wasting precious time and energy agonising over this issue.
Most people - ie non-techy people - don't see the web as bloated or oppressed - it never enters their heads.
When they can no longer navigate the web on their respective devices they simply think it's time to upgrade - enforced and consolidated by the 'expert' advice they receive from friends and the guys in the tech store.
This doesn't make them dumb or compliant, it's just not a priority for them, in the same way it's not a priority to me to learn automotive engineering - I just take the car to the garage.
The planned obsolescence/upgrade cycle is just one poisonous component of our materially obsessed society - the only meaningfully tactic to resist this is help form alternatives and promote those alternatives to like minded people - which is vaguely the thrust of Web 1.1
But it is what is is - a niche interest for a tiny bunch of hobbyists, tinkerers and SM self promoters - at best it will grow and interface with the self-sustaining/green crowd but that's a stretch...
You can either contribute - like you said you were going to a year ago - or leave the internet to newer machines and use your old Macs for period correct pursuits offline.
You are right and wrong - I use my PPC machines to browse the internet in search of Web 1.1 websites.. too bad Macrumors isn’t a web 1.1 site, though the owner of the site could make the PPC forum 1.1 but off site. My argument is simply why can’t a PowerPC Mac have denial of internet, while the Amiga people have bo issues with the internet and they are pure PowerPC all the way.
I remember a post from a mod here asking how do people access these forums on PowerPC Macs, what browsers and operating systems they use, etc. to ensure that some website upgrades would not break compatibility. I have personally never seen a website or forum care that much about not breaking a niche user's workflow on long unsupported operating systems. As nice as it would be, it would be insane for them to pay for a different alternative site or work on a completely new separate forum for the free service they are providing.
The old web is out there. I'm in 2 forums that don't even support https. People think forums are dead but their still out there and remain the best way to find people with similar interests. My website isn't accessable without https because of github hosting it for free, but it is in the spirt of the old web: https://alex-free.github.io
Both communities are run by hobbyists and enthusiasts for retro tech, with probably not that much overlap. Where there is a will, there is a way, yes. It's not as easy as just doing the same thing the Amiga people did. LWK is probably a nightmare to work with and I think one would have to back-port an opentransport framework that supports newer TLS. This is probably why no one has done it yet.
TenFourFox ain't perfect compatibility wise with websites like GitHub anymore but it is enough for me to get around and use these forums. Links2 also can browse this site pretty well. There are options.
This Links2 will it work in Sorbet Leopard ? I need to read more about how to use it. And I used the latest 104fox and Github works fine. Now, the question is if I download this tenfourfox toolkit and use it to compile new browers, will it also inject new TLS and certs ?
Looks like Cameron has been busy.. TenFourFox is still alive with new updates on github. I may learn how to use the toolkit to make my own, though I have a PB G4 at the moment to compile it.
tenfourfox.blogspot.com
TenFourFox Development
What's new in TenFourFox, the Mozilla browser for Power Macs.
tenfourfox.blogspot.com
any ideas on how to push to github using early osx? using github pages as my host, need to find a way to update w/o my modern mac
*edit
preferrably panther, i cant seem to burn any bootable tiger cds
*edit
preferrably panther, i cant seem to burn any bootable tiger cds
Last edited:
Links2 works in 10.3 and up if you have X11 installed.
Also using them as my host. Technically you can use the git in PPCMC7 on panther. I've done it before. You have to generate ssh keys using the legacy method:
Generating a new SSH key and adding it to the ssh-agent - GitHub Docs
After you've checked for existing SSH keys, you can generate a new SSH key to use for authentication, then add it to the ssh-agent.
Code:
ssh-keygen -t rsa -b 4096 -C "your_email@example.com"On Tiger and above though probably best to just use MacPorts to install git.
I just experienced something so obvious yet frustrating with the modern web. I do not have a Google account btw.
I am trying to send someone with a gmail account a zip file. It contains source files.
I got blocked by gmail 4 times for trying to send a .zip attachment with this message:
"This message was blocked because its content presents a potential security issue. Please visit https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BlockedMessage to review our message content and attachment content guidelines."
I finally checked that URL and noticed it said .exe was blocked, BUT .zip was not. I had no .exe attachment, I had a .zip attachment. But guess what I forgot was in my .zip? A .exe of the built source...
I deleted the .exe, rezipped it, and viola!
This is not clear at all that Google is unzipping your attachments and checking for "blacklisted file extensions" and then blocking them. This is not explained at all by them, I had to connect the dots myself.
I am trying to send someone with a gmail account a zip file. It contains source files.
I got blocked by gmail 4 times for trying to send a .zip attachment with this message:
"This message was blocked because its content presents a potential security issue. Please visit https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BlockedMessage to review our message content and attachment content guidelines."
I finally checked that URL and noticed it said .exe was blocked, BUT .zip was not. I had no .exe attachment, I had a .zip attachment. But guess what I forgot was in my .zip? A .exe of the built source...
I deleted the .exe, rezipped it, and viola!
This is not clear at all that Google is unzipping your attachments and checking for "blacklisted file extensions" and then blocking them. This is not explained at all by them, I had to connect the dots myself.
I get that anytime I try to send someone with a Gmail account a photo of myself. Presumably they think I'm so hideous that anyone who sees my photo is at risk of dying from a heart attack.
Last edited:
Try it with a password protected zip
Actually just tried this - even with a 50 character password Google 'knows' there's an exe in the zip....
Are they just looking for the .exe extension or do you think they are reading the header data?
If it is the latter I wonder if a C program could modify the exe, intentionally messing up the header in specific way that:
- the receiver could easily 'fix' the intentionally messed up file with a 'sister' program and get a working .exe.
- Google never figures out what the file actually was/is.
Basically I'm wondering how 'smart' this whole thing is.
Anyone have a Gmail account and some time?
I don't understand the mechanism of how any of it works - in my naivety I'd have thought a password protected archive's contents are hidden - of course, corporations can crack passwords below a certain length in fractions of a second.
I tried an exe zipped up and then zipped up again and that went through.
Yeah, the contents aren't hidden in a traditional ZipCrypto archive. You can't open any of the contents without a password, but the directory itself is in the open. If you want to hide that too, you'll want a modern archive format such as 7z or RAR or even ZIP with LZMA instead of ZipCrypto.